I doubt it will become anything *that* significant--beyond economic factors. As the article highlights, Russia has rather limited options for retaliation due to NATO, and will also not want to detriment the alliance that it has established with France and is attempting to establish with other Western countries. Despite this, I don't think there will be a quick 'resolution' as such--the present approach will remain with the two countries but it won't necessarily escalate that much further.

The key thing that Russia will continue highlight is the connection between ISIS and Turkey; I.E, Russia has explicitly stated that oil *directly* from ISIS is entering into Turkey--and there's also the fact that Turkey has largely resisted any form of military combat with ISIS, instead bombing Kurdish forces. The Russian plane was not shot down because of airspace violations (hence why it landed in Syrian territory), but because of the benefits that Turkey receive from Islamic State.

At 11/30/2015 11:17:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:The key thing that Russia will continue highlight is the connection between ISIS and Turkey; I.E, Russia has explicitly stated that oil *directly* from ISIS is entering into Turkey--and there's also the fact that Turkey has largely resisted any form of military combat with ISIS, instead bombing Kurdish forces. The Russian plane was not shot down because of airspace violations (hence why it landed in Syrian territory), but because of the benefits that Turkey receive from Islamic State.

Do you always take Russia's side? Just curious.

But, sure, Turkey is taking oil from ISIS. So what? There are diplomatic channels to go through to resolve the problem. It doesn't justify Russia violating Turkish airspace. And there is no reason to believe that where the plane landed proves where it was shot. If it was just inside the border, it could've easily fallen several miles into Syria. And, given Russia's violation of other NATO and EU nation's airspaces, there is little reason to believe that Russia wouldn't have done something like this. Russia is the consumate provocateur.

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

At 11/30/2015 11:17:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:The key thing that Russia will continue highlight is the connection between ISIS and Turkey; I.E, Russia has explicitly stated that oil *directly* from ISIS is entering into Turkey--and there's also the fact that Turkey has largely resisted any form of military combat with ISIS, instead bombing Kurdish forces. The Russian plane was not shot down because of airspace violations (hence why it landed in Syrian territory), but because of the benefits that Turkey receive from Islamic State.

Do you always take Russia's side? Just curious.

Not at all, feel free to point out where I've explicitly stated or given any clear indication of 'always' taking 'Russia's side'. Rather I'm just outlining some basic information.

But, sure, Turkey is taking oil from ISIS. So what?

That's actually quite significant, as it shows that Turkey is essentially supporting ISIS and has no real intention or reason to remove it from the region. The primary source of ISIS' income is oil dealing, which is thus why Russia has specifically been targeting (ISIS) oil refineries. As a result, a Russian plane was shot down by Turkey.

It's simply naive to think that's the *actual* reason why Turkey did it and is a statement that is easily discredited--after all, Israel has entered Turkish airspace on numerous occasions and Turkey itself regularly does it in Greece; yet no planes are shot down. Moreover, the one pilot was killed while parachuting to safety. To attempt to provide any justification for this, you'd actually be defending a war crime.

And there is no reason to believe that where the plane landed proves where it was shot.

Yes there is, the plane and the pilots landed in Syria--as stated above, they were shot at while retreating from the plane. The entire incident occurred in Syrian territory.

If it was just inside the border, it could've easily fallen several miles into Syria. And, given Russia's violation of other NATO and EU nation's airspaces, there is little reason to believe that Russia wouldn't have done something like this. Russia is the consumate provocateur.

Again, 'airspace violations' are hardly uncommon. And on that exact premise, Greece could easily use the same excuse and shoot down Turkish planes--but once more, it is not acceptable.

Turkey shot down a Russian jet which violeted Turkish airspace.Turkey is right %100, radar records clealerly shows and NATO records too.Furthermore, though Russia defends that it is there because fighting against DAESH terror organisation. It is a big lie! Because where jet fell,there is no Daesh terror organisation, but there are only poor Turkmen peasants.But Russia insists his unjustified discourse.

I am sure that Russia intends to reach to Meditarrenean Sea as a state policy since Tsar Peter the Great!

To be honest, I don't see the big deal with taking oil from ISIS. It is essentially business as usual. It doesn't mean that Turkey supports ISIS, but it does mean that they need a continuous supply of petroleum which they can get cheap from rogue groups.

This is no different from when back in the day British citizens throughout the globe would buy trade goods from the Dutch illegally. Yes, this was technically against the law and was even commonly declared treason, but in my opinion it is just freedom of trade.

At 11/30/2015 11:17:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:The key thing that Russia will continue highlight is the connection between ISIS and Turkey; I.E, Russia has explicitly stated that oil *directly* from ISIS is entering into Turkey--and there's also the fact that Turkey has largely resisted any form of military combat with ISIS, instead bombing Kurdish forces. The Russian plane was not shot down because of airspace violations (hence why it landed in Syrian territory), but because of the benefits that Turkey receive from Islamic State.

Do you always take Russia's side? Just curious.

Not at all,

Emil, let's be honest. You're decidedly pro-Russian.

But, sure, Turkey is taking oil from ISIS. So what?

That's actually quite significant, as it shows that Turkey is essentially supporting ISIS and has no real intention or reason to remove it from the region.

It doesn't show Turkey is pro-ISIS. It shows Turkey is opportunistic, a flaw that Russia is just as guilty of. But, regardless, it doesn't excuse violating Turkey's airspace.

The primary source of ISIS' income is oil dealing, which is thus why Russia has specifically been targeting (ISIS) oil refineries. As a result, a Russian plane was shot down by Turkey.

Unlikely. Turkey has too much at stake to be that aggressive.

It doesn't justify Russia violating Turkish airspace.

It's simply naive to think that's the *actual* reason why Turkey did it and is a statement that is easily discredited--after all, Israel has entered Turkish airspace on numerous occasions and Turkey itself regularly does it in Greece; yet no planes are shot down. Moreover, the one pilot was killed while parachuting to safety. To attempt to provide any justification for this, you'd actually be defending a war crime.

The claim that defending your airspace is a war crime is absurd. Turkey made it clear that it would shoot down warplanes entering its airspace from certain trajectories. Russia cannot therefore complain. And, obviously Turkey has reason to want to down the Russian plane--it brings NATO closer to the conflict, it is a protest for Russia's support of Assad, etc., but Turkey would not have downed the play without a reason it could legally justify, and that was Russia violating its airspace. Russia overplayed its hand.

And there is no reason to believe that where the plane landed proves where it was shot.

Yes there is, the plane and the pilots landed in Syria--as stated above, they were shot at while retreating from the plane. The entire incident occurred in Syrian territory.

Again, where the plane landed doesn't prove where it was shot. Radar images from the U.S., Turkey, and NATO confirm Turkey's story.

If it was just inside the border, it could've easily fallen several miles into Syria. And, given Russia's violation of other NATO and EU nation's airspaces, there is little reason to believe that Russia wouldn't have done something like this. Russia is the consumate provocateur.

Again, 'airspace violations' are hardly uncommon. And on that exact premise, Greece could easily use the same excuse and shoot down Turkish planes--but once more, it is not acceptable.

Greece, could, sure. But it doesn't. And, what you're close to employing here is a tu quoque fallacy--just because Turkey does it to others, does not mean it is okay to violate Turkey's airspace.

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

At 11/30/2015 11:17:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:The key thing that Russia will continue highlight is the connection between ISIS and Turkey; I.E, Russia has explicitly stated that oil *directly* from ISIS is entering into Turkey--and there's also the fact that Turkey has largely resisted any form of military combat with ISIS, instead bombing Kurdish forces. The Russian plane was not shot down because of airspace violations (hence why it landed in Syrian territory), but because of the benefits that Turkey receive from Islamic State.

Do you always take Russia's side? Just curious.

But, sure, Turkey is taking oil from ISIS. So what? There are diplomatic channels to go through to resolve the problem. It doesn't justify Russia violating Turkish airspace. And there is no reason to believe that where the plane landed proves where it was shot. If it was just inside the border, it could've easily fallen several miles into Syria. And, given Russia's violation of other NATO and EU nation's airspaces, there is little reason to believe that Russia wouldn't have done something like this. Russia is the consumate provocateur.

I was listening to the radio and they had someone discussing the nuts and bolts of what was happening. He was noting that the russian air force is actually ill equipped to do this kind of mission - wrong type of planes, bombs etc. So what happens is since it is a mountainous region where this is taking place puts the pilots in some amount of danger and more so if they do the strike in a manner that 100% avoids minor border violations. So the pilots take a safer attack vector, which can cause an overshoot into Turkish space.

Turkey on the other hand has been funding the anti Assad forces and does not want Russia to be successful. So whether the Russian jets violated Turkish airspace is questionable, but plausible. However, Turkey does not want Russia to be successful in and will flex its muscles as much as it can in order to be a PITA.

That's actually quite significant, as it shows that Turkey is essentially supporting ISIS and has no real intention or reason to remove it from the region.

It doesn't show Turkey is pro-ISIS. It shows Turkey is opportunistic, a flaw that Russia is just as guilty of. But, regardless, it doesn't excuse violating Turkey's airspace.

So, we can sanction the living fvck out of Russia for Crimea but we brush off NATO members possibly dealing with ISIS?

It is, actually, engaging in actions that would directly support the financial capabilities of ISIS. That's also not mentioning that these oil fields would rightly be under control of two governments, who are losing money from such deals, if they have occurred.

The Turks had every right to shoot down that plane, First of all it was in their air space, They gave clear warnings, and Yet the plane didn't stop. I doubt the Russians will do anything to risk triggering war with Turkey. What will most likely happen is tensions will rise, and Russia will get back at turkey in little ways.

That's actually quite significant, as it shows that Turkey is essentially supporting ISIS and has no real intention or reason to remove it from the region.

It doesn't show Turkey is pro-ISIS. It shows Turkey is opportunistic, a flaw that Russia is just as guilty of. But, regardless, it doesn't excuse violating Turkey's airspace.

So, we can sanction the living fvck out of Russia for Crimea but we brush off NATO members possibly dealing with ISIS?

I heard somewhere that one of the reasons the US is so lenient towards Turkey is because they (The Turks) are allowing the US to have access to some critically important airbase for bombing missions against Isis.... Its the same reason teh US is also reluctant to recognize the Iraqi Kurdish population in Northern Iraq as an independent country, since the Turks do not like the Kurds.

It is, actually, engaging in actions that would directly support the financial capabilities of ISIS. That's also not mentioning that these oil fields would rightly be under control of two governments, who are losing money from such deals, if they have occurred.

At 11/30/2015 11:17:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:The key thing that Russia will continue highlight is the connection between ISIS and Turkey; I.E, Russia has explicitly stated that oil *directly* from ISIS is entering into Turkey--and there's also the fact that Turkey has largely resisted any form of military combat with ISIS, instead bombing Kurdish forces. The Russian plane was not shot down because of airspace violations (hence why it landed in Syrian territory), but because of the benefits that Turkey receive from Islamic State.

Do you always take Russia's side? Just curious.

Not at all,

Emil, let's be honest. You're decidedly pro-Russian.

Nope, highlighting western hypocrisy *and* specifying basic facts does not necessarily equate being pro-Russian. If I was indeed Pro-Russian, I'd be for them on every single topic, which I'm not.

Disagreeing with an action of one country, does not automatically make you a supporter of the country that the action is perpetrated against.

But, sure, Turkey is taking oil from ISIS. So what?

That's actually quite significant, as it shows that Turkey is essentially supporting ISIS and has no real intention or reason to remove it from the region.

It doesn't show Turkey is pro-ISIS. It shows Turkey is opportunistic, a flaw that Russia is just as guilty of. But, regardless, it doesn't excuse violating Turkey's airspace.

Again, it proves that Turkey is financially supporting ISIS. In addition to confirming that they have no reason to defeat or remove them; which is contradictory when considering that Turkey is supposed to be an ally to the West. By illegally buying oil from ISIS, Turkey is contributing to and enabling their existence. Turkey also firmly supports the removal of Assad, which is thus another reason why ISIS is more of a benefit than a detriment to them.

The primary source of ISIS' income is oil dealing, which is thus why Russia has specifically been targeting (ISIS) oil refineries. As a result, a Russian plane was shot down by Turkey.

Unlikely. Turkey has too much at stake to be that aggressive.

Not really, after all it's not like Russia would commit an outright military war against Turkey.

It doesn't justify Russia violating Turkish airspace.

You've ignored my previous points. Once again, Turkey *violates* Greek airspace on an almost regular basis. In fact, just this Tuesday6 Turkish F-16 jets went flying into Greek territory-- despite the Greeks previously reiterating their disproval of it. This shows the level of arrogance and hypocrisy that is connected with the whole incident.

It's simply naive to think that's the *actual* reason why Turkey did it and is a statement that is easily discredited--after all, Israel has entered Turkish airspace on numerous occasions and Turkey itself regularly does it in Greece; yet no planes are shot down. Moreover, the one pilot was killed while parachuting to safety. To attempt to provide any justification for this, you'd actually be defending a war crime.

The claim that defending your airspace is a war crime is absurd.

That's twisting my words. What I said was that shooting and killing a retreating pilot is a war crime. I will remind you again that no threat was being posed, and both pilots were openly parachuting to safety. Arguing under the disguise of 'defence' just doesn't work when studying the facts.

Turkey made it clear that it would shoot down warplanes entering its airspace from certain trajectories.

It didn't exactly make it clear, besides--why doesn't this apply to Israel? A country that has entered Turkish airspace considerably more times than Russia.

Russia cannot therefore complain.

It certainly can, as other countries would if they'd had their jet shot down--without viable justification.

And, obviously Turkey has reason to want to down the Russian plane--it brings NATO closer to the conflict, it is a protest for Russia's support of Assad, etc., but Turkey would not have downed the play without a reason it could legally justify, and that was Russia violating its airspace. Russia overplayed its hand.

The fact is that it cannot 'legally justify' it on the premise that it is currently using. For example, Turkey has contradicted itself with regards to the movements of the plane and the duration it was supposedly in their airspace. The plane would not have been in it for any more than 17 seconds, thus there would be a *very* limited amount of time in which to warn it; and that significantly discredits what Turkey has said.

And there is no reason to believe that where the plane landed proves where it was shot.

Yes there is, the plane and the pilots landed in Syria--as stated above, they were shot at while retreating from the plane. The entire incident occurred in Syrian territory.

Again, where the plane landed doesn't prove where it was shot. Radar images from the U.S., Turkey, and NATO confirm Turkey's story.

The plane and then the pilots were shot where the plane landed, which was in Syria. That's pretty easy to grasp ;)

If it was just inside the border, it could've easily fallen several miles into Syria. And, given Russia's violation of other NATO and EU nation's airspaces, there is little reason to believe that Russia wouldn't have done something like this. Russia is the consumate provocateur.

Again, 'airspace violations' are hardly uncommon. And on that exact premise, Greece could easily use the same excuse and shoot down Turkish planes--but once more, it is not acceptable.

Greece, could, sure. But it doesn't. And, what you're close to employing here is a tu quoque fallacy--just because Turkey does it to others, does not mean it is okay to violate Turkey's airspace.

No, what I'm implying is that the excuse that Turkey and its allies are using is erroneous. To explain it to you more simply:

-Entering another nations airspace is 'violating it'.

-Violating another nations airspace is a justification for that nation to 'defend' itself via shooting the jet down and killing members of its crew.

THIS is the premise that Turkey is using--therefore, by logic, it could easily apply to other countries and thus they could also have the right to use it. You've basically said that no-one [well, Russia] can violate Turkey's airspace, but Turkey itself can violate any airspace it wants without expecting any repercussions.

That's explicitly biased and non-objective.

I'd additionally point out that in normal and *legal* circumstances, unwelcome jets are chased out of the said airspace, instead of being shot down without impunity.

Clearly no country wants military jets from other countries entering its air space without permission. However normally this does not result in a plane being shot down. It is clear president Erdogan is a man determined to ensure Turkey has a big say in the Syrian conflict and his government's opposition to Assads dictatorship and support for its enemies Is in stark contrast to Russia's position of supporting Assad and opposing his enemies. Therefore it was fairly clear in my view that the risk of minor conflict over this type of issue was inevitable while both countries were operating with opposite agendas in the region. Therefore the continued minor breaches into its airspace by Russian planes on there way to bombing turkeys allies were bound to hit a nerve. I don't really see why Russia wanted its planes to enter Turkish air space due to the obvious risk. I conclude it was likely an attempt at intimidation. It was certainly taken as just that by Turkey and it's nationalist government decided it was not going to be intimidated. It was economic stupidity though with the effects from sanctions likely to cause significant losses to Turkey. Losing a trade partner is far from ideal for Russia either. A stupid incident in a stupid conflict.